SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is an owner of a timber store at Suratgarh. According to his own admission made in the petition he committed trespass of the adjoining land of his store and is in possession of the same since long, for which first time it was given notice on 8. 11. 76 (Annex. 1) then on 14. 1. 86 (Annex. 2) and then on 9. 7. 99 (Annex. 3 ). THE third notice at Annex. 3 dated 9. 7. 99 was replied by the petitioner which was received by the Municipality on 14. 7. 99 (Annex. 4 ). Immediately on the next day i. e. on 15. 7. 99 another notice was given by the respondent No. 3 calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment within seven days failing which the proceedings will be initiated against him under Sec. 203 of the Municipalities Act, 1959. Against this notice, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court on 22. 7. 99 i. e. yesterday.
(2.) ON a written application dated 22. 7. 99 for listing his petition early, yesterday I granted permission to the petitioner to move this matter today as it was stated in the application that petitioner will be dis-possessed from the land in question. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that he had already informed the respondents that against the impugned notice Annex. 5 he has filed this writ petition, therefore, they may not proceed against him as per the notice Annex. 5 for at least two days. Be that as it may. This prayer was not made in the petition. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitio-ner is in possession of the land in question since 1968, therefore, he cannot be evicted as per the notice at Annex. 5, though his status may be of trespasser. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. T. Krishnarao and another (1 ). He has also tried to relied upon my own judgment delivered recently on 6. 07. 1999 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3680/89 (2) and submitted that the impugned notice be quashed. In Krishna Rao's case (S. C.) (Supra) facts were totally different. In that case the Government decided the question unilaterly in its own favour and wanted to evict a person summarily on the basis of such decision. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question regarding duration of occu-pation and the fact of the person having possession for a long time. The case decided by me in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3680/89 was a case of a poor and illiterate person having no house to stay, was maintaining himself by running a small DHABA within the limit of Municipal Board, Sanchore. The petition was filed in 1989 which came to be decided in 1999 i. e. after ten years. The petitio-ner was protected by the interim order of this Court. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of that case, the Municipal Board was directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted. Coming to the facts of this case, the admitted facts are that the petitioner, who is a trespasser on the land since 1968 according to his own admission. The pe-titioner is not a poor person who has committed trespass to earn his livelihood. He is running a timber business and already having a store and committed trespass on the adjoining land for the purpose of keeping timber in it which comes in the way of people of Suratgarh. It was a government land and merely because the petitioner is having possession since 1968, cannot claim any right whatsoever. It appears that the petitioner was served with a notice at Annex. 1, and another notice after 12 years at Annex. 2 but nothing happened at that time. It is not on record that he submitted any reply and considering the reply the petitioner was allowed to keep the possession of the land on which he committed trespass. It appears that the petitioner being influential, managed with the authority to see to it that he occupied the land and keep the possession illegally. Third notice dated 9. 7. 79 (Annex. 3) was received by him after a gap of 11 years of issuance of second notice to which he submitted reply to the Municipal Board on last date i. e. on 14. 7. 99 (Annex. 4 ). It is thereafter that Annex. 5 notice dated 15. 7. 99 was issued and for the first time the petitioner has challenged the same by way of this petition before this Court.
(3.) IN view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and the admitted fact that the petitioner is a trespasser, he cannot be allowed to challenge impugned notice at Annex. 5. The respondent Municipality cannot be prevented from proceeding against him in accordance with law as per notice dated 15. 7. 99 (Annex. 5 ). In view of the above neither the decision of the Supreme Court in case of T. Krishnarao (supra) nor my judgment has any application. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly it fails and is dismissed. . ;